Continuation Part Six: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Samson]

Machiavelli has clearly referred to Hellmann and Vechiotti as criminals. And now he refers to us as criminals also.

I assume criminal has a completely different meaning to an Italian. An open society has a much greater friendly circle to embrace debate.
Actually, Machiavelli should consider what wager he would place on guilt if it emerged there had been discovered secret video within the cottage that night.
Before he could view it.
I would wager my life on RS and AK's absence if he would he wager his life on there presence.
Broadly speaking.

 

[kwill]

The trouble is, that even though this is true, that Mignini lied to Drew Griffin, the overarching trajectory of Machiavelli's thought doesn't allow for it.

I actually read the whole translation over at PMF of that interview. (I think Machiavelli may have had a hand in translating it, is that correct?)

I believe that Mignini was caught being false a number of times. The one I pointed out about his implication that budgetary issues prevented audio or video taping of those interrogations is one.

Another is the repeated assertion that there is mixed blood:

Mignini: In the bathroom of the two foreign girls, that is Meredith and Amanda, which is attached, next to the room of the murder, blood material was discovered of Amanda and Meredith, mixed.

Another is the fudging about his interview with Doug Preston. First he says it was only 20 minutes, then later he says maybe it was 20, or 40, or an hour . . . this ought to be troubling to someone who is trying to assess the trustworthiness of this man, who has no trouble accusing others of lies.

 

[MichaelB]

I haven't followed the cars outside. But Rudy was in Meredith's room alone with Meredith and the door was closed when he murdered her. There was probably nobody else even in the cottage.





No. The police found the key upstairs.

Are you sure? Where did you read that?

 

[Mary_H]

Look, actually I really want to leave you the freedom to assess Sollecito's statement the way you like. I did not have a wish to engage in a discussion about why his comment is suspicious.
I think it's useful if I point out a factual point, what he said; as for why it is suspicious or not, well, to me there is nothing wrong in bringing opinions about it but it may be rather more a waste of time, or at least it would take a bit. To me it is just obvious why it is suspicious, I find it strange that some people won't perceive it as such or don't notice. If you want to understand more why we have these different perceptions, I should think about and describe a bit more at lenght my experience of things and logical procedure about the point.

To me, it looks like Raffaele called to report a break-in, not a theft. He couldn't report a theft because as far as he knew, nothing had been taken.

Here is a difference in perception we could look at instead:

POLICE:
OK, I'll send you a patrol car now and we'll check the situation out.
RS:
OK.
POLICE:
Is this OK with you?
RS:
Yes.
POLICE:
Goodbye.

This is an exchange that would not happen in the United States, the reason being that if the police ask your permission to respond to your call, and you say no, the police are still responsible for making the decision to respond to the call. If you call with a complaint and tell them to stay away, but then something bad happens, then the police are responsible for what may happen by virtue of their duties as public servants with more knowledge of law and order than citizens have.

I have a feeling that the procedure illustrated in the exchange above (if it is typical and not a fluke) is designed to allow authorities to escape responsibility if something goes wrong, as in, "We didn't go because he told us not to go." That would be in keeping with the general attitude of blame we have seen coming from authorities in Perugia.

 

[Mary_H]

I point out that I have no interest in protecting PLE; I am only interested in protecting what I believe to be truth and justice.

And also, I add to this the fact that I consider the IIP, the pro-Knox supporters and their media Italian networks as a criminal force, and I defend what I believe should be the sovregnity of a system, and what I believe a defence by the collectivity from the power of criminal mobs should be.<snip>

We also believe we are defending against the power of a criminal mob, only we actually have specified and described the crimes committed by PLE. You seem to be accusing us of using the media to commit crimes, when there is no crime in using the media. Why would you think there is?

As I asked you last week, would you ever be open to the possibility that truth and justice may not be correlated with a specific sovereign system?

<snip>The problem with these two people is that I hate their accusers. I am disgusted by the campaign that has targeted them. You mistake my hatred against their accusers with a kind of loyalty to them. You are wrong. It would be like saying Emile Zola was loyal to jewish communities because he defended Dreyfuss. Which is an absurd twisting of facts. Zola was not loyal to any persecuted minority, he couldn't care lees about their identity and couldn't care less about whether the person he was defending was 'perfect' or not; he was motivated by his own rage, not by any loyalty.
Just like some pro-Knox supporter seem to be.
The same is about me.

I hope you have never been one of the PGP who have accused PIP of defending Amanda only because she is young, white, female and attractive.

So far, any "campaign" against Mignini, Stefanoni and their colleagues does not seem to have had any effect on them. It's true, a lot of them are now getting into trouble with the law, but that seems to be the result of their own misbehavior, not of any media campaign, and certainly not one conducted in English.

 

[acbytesla]

You are mistaken even on this one. I would have some criticism about Mignini as well, but nothing comparable to your accusations and nothing really against his honesty or professionalism.
About Stefanoni, I really can't think about anything because she did nothing wrong in my opinion and nothing beyond her task.

The problem with these two people is that I hate their accusers. I am disgusted by the campaign that has targeted them. You mistake my hatred against their accusers with a kind of loyalty to them. You are wrong. It would be like saying Emile Zola was loyal to jewish communities because he defended Dreyfuss. Which is an absurd twisting of facts. Zola was not loyal to any persecuted minority, he couldn't care lees about their identity and couldn't care less about whether the person he was defending was 'perfect' or not; he was motivated by his own rage, not by any loyalty.
Just like some pro-Knox supporter seem to be.
The same is about me.

I like that you refer to some of us like Emile Zola, but I'd say you are more like the German Einsatzgruppen.

 

[acbytesla]

I assume criminal has a completely different meaning to an Italian. An open society has a much greater friendly circle to embrace debate.
Actually, Machiavelli should consider what wager he would place on guilt if it emerged there had been discovered secret video within the cottage that night.
Before he could view it.
I would wager my life on RS and AK's absence if he would he wager his life on there presence.
Broadly speaking.

I think Mach's in trouble. Take the bet Mach!!!!

 

[toto]

It's incorrect. Sollecito is the first person saying "there is no theft", without being asked; it was Sollecito's spontaneous pointing out or correction, the Carabinieri in fact did not specifically ask any question about what was stolen or if they stole anything.

Then, on the second call few seconds later the officer asked about "what has been stolen" and Raffaele repeated the concept that "they didn't steal anything" (Sollecito thus repeated the thing twice, the first time not being asked).

Raffaele wrote in his book Honor Bound pages 26 -29

I agreed with Amanda, the kitchen, the and living room looked normal. So did Laura's room; a couple of drawers were pulled open, but that didn't strike me as out of the ordinary. Amanda's room was apparently untouched: she had left the previous night's clothes shrewn over her bed, and her other things were less than tidy, but nothing seemed to be missing. Then I pushed open Filomena's door, which had been left slightly ajar, and saw that the place was trashed. Clothes and belongings were strewn everywhere. The window had a large, roundish hole, and broken glass was spread all over the floor.
Okay, we thought. so there's been a break-in. What we couldn't understand was why Filomena's laptop was still propped upright in its case on the floor, or why her digital camera was still sitting out in the kitchen. As far as we could tell, nothing of value was missing anywhere...
...
...I dialled the emergency number for the carabinieri. On the first try, the dispatcher said he was busy and told me to call back. Not exactly the response I wanted to hear. When I called back a few minutes later, he was still noticeably impatient.
When I described the break-in and the bloodstains, and he became fixated on the idea that the intruder had cut himself on the glass on the way through Filomena's window. I didn't quite know how to respond to that, and when I hesitated, he growled at me to make sure I was still there.
"So, it's a home burglary?" he asked.
"No, nothing's been taken." I didn't know that for sure, of course, and I should have been more careful about my choice of words. At the time, I though, I thought I was just performing my civic duty by passing the information along...

 

[toto]

Raffaele wrote in his book Honor Bound pages 26 -29

I agreed with Amanda, the kitchen, the and living room looked normal. So did Laura's room; a couple of drawers were pulled open, but that didn't strike me as out of the ordinary. Amanda's room was apparently untouched: she had left the previous night's clothes shrewn over her bed, and her other things were less than tidy, but nothing seemed to be missing. Then I pushed open Filomena's door, which had been left slightly ajar, and saw that the place was trashed. Clothes and belongings were strewn everywhere. The window had a large, roundish hole, and broken glass was spread all over the floor.
Okay, we thought. so there's been a break-in. What we couldn't understand was why Filomena's laptop was still propped upright in its case on the floor, or why her digital camera was still sitting out in the kitchen. As far as we could tell, nothing of value was missing anywhere...
...
...I dialled the emergency number for the carabinieri. On the first try, the dispatcher said he was busy and told me to call back. Not exactly the response I wanted to hear. When I called back a few minutes later, he was still noticeably impatient.
When I described the break-in and the bloodstains, and he became fixated on the idea that the intruder had cut himself on the glass on the way through Filomena's window. I didn't quite know how to respond to that, and when I hesitated, he growled at me to make sure I was still there.
"So, it's a home burglary?" he asked.
"No, nothing's been taken." I didn't know that for sure, of course, and I should have been more careful about my choice of words. At the time, I though, I thought I was just performing my civic duty by passing the information along...

The above quotation taken from Raffaele's book seems to me a reasonable account of the circumstance of the scene. He also relates, when the police did turn up on the scene that "they agreed it was strange that no valuables had been taken."

 

[toto]

The above quotation taken from Raffaele's book seems to me a reasonable account of the circumstance of the scene. He also relates, when the police did turn up on the scene that "they agreed it was strange that no valuables had been taken."

Amanda Knox in her book Waiting to be heard, also states the strangeness, after seeing the chaos in Filomena's room (page 68)

"Oh my God, someone broke in!" I shouted to Rafaelle, who was right behind me. In the next instant, I spotted Filomena's laptop and digital camera sitting on the desk. I couldn't get my head around it. "That's so weird," I said. "Her things are here. I don't understand. What could have happened?"

 

[toto]

From http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_112_Calls#First_Call


POLICE:

Theft [burglary] in the house eh?


RS:

No, there's no theft.. they broke the window ... there is a mess ... there is also a closed door ... a mess

 

[toto]

It's incorrect. Sollecito is the first person saying "there is no theft", without being asked; it was Sollecito's spontaneous pointing out or correction, the Carabinieri in fact did not specifically ask any question about what was stolen or if they stole anything.

Then, on the second call few seconds later the officer asked about "what has been stolen" and Raffaele repeated the concept that "they didn't steal anything" (Sollecito thus repeated the thing twice, the first time not being asked).

But the police ask "Theft in the house eh?" That is the question to which Rafaelle responds.

 

[Antony]

Machiavelli has clearly referred to Hellmann and Vechiotti as criminals. And now he refers to us as criminals also.

Don't get yourself banned, Mach. For all our disagreement, the discussion will be the poorer without you.

 

[acbytesla]

Excellent cites Toto.

 

[Diocletus]

I point out that I have no interest in protecting PLE; I am only interested in protecting what I believe to be truth and justice.

And also, I add to this the fact that I consider the IIP, the pro-Knox supporters and their media Italian networks as a criminal force, and I defend what I believe should be the sovregnity of a system, and what I believe a defence by the collectivity from the power of criminal mobs should be.

"Sovereign" in the sense that they are able to disregard their own laws and act like a pack of dirty animals?

But they aren't even that. Italy has surrendered some of its sovereignty to Europe and is subject to the ECHR. And the animals violated the ECHR.

 

[Diocletus]

I also believe the racist or prejudicial stance expressed by part of the press and of the American Polupation must be pointed out and fight as a cultural element.

Yes, Americans are prejudiced against people who suck. Usually, that means other Americans. In this case, it's the Italian justice system that sucks.

 

[Strozzi]

I point out that I have no interest in protecting PLE; I am only interested in protecting what I believe to be truth and justice

If you are looking to protect truth and justice, and not interested in protecting PLE, then why do I not see any comments from you criticizing the investigation? As I recall, Mignini's only publicly stated regret is not permitting the medical examiner to take the victim's body temperature immediately, rather than delaying temperature-taking another 12 or so hours after the murder was discovered. I don't recall any comments from you criticizing how the crime scene was handled; how evidence was collected or preserved; how Dr. Stefanoni regrettably lacked proper scientific instruments or scientific knowledge (too low, too low) to properly analyze LCN DNA evidence? Machiavelli, why no criticism from you on how the PLE interrogated the defendants? Don't you wish the police had tape recorded the interrogations as that would establish what really was said and occurred as the police rushed to create a case before Amanda's mother arrived (per Massei)? Then the police would be commended for their correct "interview", rather than strongly criticized for leading in a foreign language a gullible 20-year old into imagining she was there but was too traumatized to remember. (remember "Reid technique".)

You are not here to protect truth. You are a very articulate and savy partisan player protecting the interests of the prosecution and the reputations of certain people.

Don't you remember saying "this is war"?

Please allow me to say again: Your English skills are really superb!

 

[Strozzi]

The problem with these two people is that I hate their accusers. I am disgusted by the campaign that has targeted them. You mistake my hatred against their accusers with a kind of loyalty to them. You are wrong.

The above words, which you wrote about accusers of Mignini and Stefanoni, are how I feel - but about the accusers of Knox and Sollecito. The difference is that the ones (Mignini and Stefanoni) who you believe are beging falsely accused and who you want to protect are the powerful people who are falsely accusing Knox and Sollecito.

 

[Briars]

The above quotation taken from Raffaele's book seems to me a reasonable account of the circumstance of the scene. He also relates, when the police did turn up on the scene that "they agreed it was strange that no valuables had been taken."

It is amusing how easily and how often Sollecito lies. In his call he says there has been no furto or theft in the second or third sentence. Well before the cop became " fixated"or mentioned the thief cutting himself and leaving blood in the bathroom. As far as being fixated he only said one thing so he entered through the window and cut himself? Sollecito flustered hesitates, and you can hear him say cosa fai to Amanda then hang up.Sollecito does not take into account that we can listen to the calls just like we can hear at how he once described Filomena's door as being wide open and tried to fix that in his book.

 

[Antony]

It is amusing how easily and how often Sollecito lies. In his call he says there has been no furto or theft in the second or third sentence. Well before the cop became " fixated"or mentioned the thief cutting himself and leaving blood in the bathroom. As far as being fixated he only said one thing so he entered through the window and cut himself? Sollecito flustered hesitates, and you can hear him say cosa fai to Amanda then hang up.Sollecito does not take into account that we can listen to the calls just like we can hear at how he once described Filomena's door as being wide open and tried to fix that in his book.

And what was Raff's deceitful purpose in these alleged "lies"?